So what can we do to stop the DOT and their plan?
jez brian. more often i shake my head and wonder what the hell are you thinking.
i wonder how much he'd like the peace bridge plaza if it paved over a south buffalo neighborhod? as far as route 5, he's been after it for years. i saw him as a state senator do an event at the pier promoting it. i asked him about metro rail alternative, all i got was dodge dodge dodge. i could have overlooked it, but this seems to get worse by the day.
I find Rozanski's statement the most poignant of all. Access to the waterfront is not just for industry or speed, but FOR the PEOPLE. Everyone.
I still find myself shaking my head. Who are these people and why do they think that they can create an proper design for an urban context. They are fine to put and maintain highways between cities but once you cross that line engineering IS NOT urban designing!!! that is best for CARS has been proven for 50 years to be BAD for cities and people. Peace bridge plaza, 33, 190, elm / oak, widening of hertel, widening of Main, widening of Nagara.. all perfectly good for transit to handle traffic but TERRIBLE for neighborhoods and people.
I again wonder how can so many people disapprove of this plan, and yet they think they are above the will of the people. Did we loose our right to choose for ourselves. Does Albany really think of us as some bastard child to take the cheapest hand outs they offer us. How about we just create some non-violent civil disobedience. Picket the DOT office, congregate cars in their parking lot so they can't leave or get in, WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE THEM LISTEN! argh! why does it have to come to this even.
Aren't they here to serve the interests of the public?
I just listened to Higgins on WNYmedia. Boy this guy is a politician. He keeps on referencing this plan as an Olmstead parkway, which it is not even close to being. I think he thinks if he says it enough times maybe someone will believe him. It is also pretty clear his mind is made up.
Higgins dropped the ball on the Power Authority deal and he is shafting the city on this one as well. Looks like the only way to prevent this is in the courts. Anyone know of a lawyer good at obstructing construction in greater Buffalo???
If the DOT, Spitzer, and Higgins will not listen to the public they will listen to a lawsuit.
Higgins is most eager to see progress and believes that the DOT plan, ready now, is a faster route towards completion of a project he can boast about. A lawsuit will make Higgins realize that this bad plan will be delayed and he better start listening to what people want.
The DOT already has alternative boulevard plans which can be made ready for bidding faster than a lawsuit can conclude.
Many people find lawsuits distasteful but like many laws, that also should be unnecessary, the court process gives people the opportunity for fairness. If people would simply behave laws and lawsuits would not be needed. But some people are greedy, unreasonable, misbehaved - so laws and lawsuits are needed.
The planning for this project began in 1986 and was open to public commentary multiple times through the course of design and engineering.
If you haven't read through the entire NYSDOT plan, you can find all the information here.
The City of Buffalo, Erie County, New York State, City of Lackawanna and local IDA's have spent hundreds of millions of dollars remediating brownfields in the areas immediately surrounding the area in question. Development investments have been made at the Union Ship Canal, Lakeside Commerce Park, and reconfiguration of several acres of the old Bethlehem steel site as an area for future industrial use. The regional plan is to reinvent the outer harbor as a destination for manufacturing, multimodal transshipment, international cargo, and industrial use. So, I ask you, why do we want to subvert all of that planning and funding to plop down an at grade 35 MPH boulevard in the midst of an area that will require major road capacity?
Does it not make sense to continue the use of Route 5 as is and simply improve access to Fuhrmann Boulevard and the outer harbor? We get waterfront access with at grade boulevards and a roadway that can support industry. The construction as planned does not preclude future demolition of the Skyway and the improvements planned for Fuhrmann as an at grade boulevard with landscaping, and water access sound like a fair compromise. From the NYSDOT plan:
Route 5 and Fuhrmann Boulevard will remain along the Buffalo Outer Harbor as separate roadways. A low-speed, landscaped Fuhrmann Boulevard offers access, development opportunities and recreational use. A rebuilt Fuhrmann Boulevard will enhance and will create access for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian use. It will be the basis of a new circulation system for the Outer Harbor and the starting point for a future “surface” bridge or bridges to connect the Outer Harbor with the rest of Buffalo at any one of three possible locations previously identified by the city.
While it is fun to rail against NY Authorities for their ineptitude and near criminal ways, this plan is the product of nearly a decade of study and planning. Extensive public commentary was solicited and all hurdles for construction have been overcome. Why on the near eve of the bidding process would the Buffalo Common Council call a special committee meeting to protest a fait accompli? Grandstanding. Frankly, I've had more political grandstanding since I moved home three years ago than one man should ever have to witness.
It is approved and there are no grounds for legal action. In order to file a lawsuit to block this plan, you need to show that there is an imminent threat of irreversible harm, and you need a valid cause of action. All the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed on this plan.
Just build it. After all, the Bass Pro Elevator To The Moon Project will be started within 20 years and it has all the made up models that make new urbanists swoon.
I don't normally advertise my [wnymedia.net] site here, but I think [our discussion with Higgins today] is germane to the conversation.
Just listened to the Higgins Podcast on WNYMedia.net. I spent the entire time shaking my head. I started shaking my fist when he talked about how this project was open to the public... for public review. WHEN??? I never heard about it. Show of hands... who was aware of the public review period for this project? I don't recall seeing that on the news.
The DOT doesn't think it is above the will of the people - it thinks it is DOING the will of the people because this plan was put out for public comment for years and no one paid attention. People only pay attention now that the funding is in the place and its about to be put out for bid. I believe this is a horrible plan, but there is a lot of fault to go around. Higgins' point that there is a limited window to spend the money is legitimate. When I was in the Air Force as an engineer we did a lot of Military Construction projects - Congressional earmarks. When the money came, you spent, because if you didn't, not only did you lose that money, but you weren't likely to get other projects in the future.
The blame for this project rests on the planners, and the decision makers at the DOT who picked a bad option. But the citizens of this community, and local politicians, bear and equal share of the responsibility. The Common Council is a day late and dollar short. Where were their protests during the mandated public comment period?
Silent Majority - I typed "DOT public comment Route 5" into Google and found the answer to your question.
https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/news/press-releases/2005/200590
July 25th, 2005 it was released. Now I don't monitor the NYSDOT webpage either for such events, but there are a number of organizations that should, like many of the politicians and community groups protesting now. Like I said, this is a terrible mistake, but this is the natural result of citizen apathy when it counts.
Looking at this picture, I would have never imagined how much of Downtown is "covered" with highways. Driving on them, at least I didn't realize how much precious space these highways are taking up, especially along the waterfront. Don't think that this sounds naive, but actually seeing the picture, put this problem more into perspective. Go to http://whynotbuffalo.blogspot.com/ and sign the petition for the alternative blvd. plan.
I stand corrected by Buffalo Geek - much more info available than my one link.
Gabe-
Our platform allows for three links and then it questions the post. How many people out there do you think can't figure out what to do with wnymedia.net? It's all there.
Why don't you weigh in on Route 5 instead of avenging the unnecessary?
On topic,
I think in terms of long-term planning, the boulevard alternative would be the correct way to go. But as BG stated, this project has been in the works for more than 20 years with plenty of opportunity for public comment. It's a little too late for last minute protests. From the podcast interview, Higgins sounds like he just wants to get the ball rolling on this project and fears that last minute changes may jeopardize anything getting done. Perhaps this DOT plan is not the best possible plan, but it's a little to late to completely change it because John Norquist waltzed into town a month or so ago with his own vision for what should be done.
Finally, we need to put this into perspective. The outer harbor is a massive polluted stretch of land that requires a shitload of investment to turn into what all my fellow urbanists have in mind for it. The OH has a much more viable future being used for industrial, transportation and logistical purposes rather than a high-density, mixed use utopia chock full of pricey condos and trendy coffee shops. If we can't even get that wonderful stuff downtown yet, what's the likelihood there is a market to support this on the outer harbor?
Let's get back down to reality before making emotional knee-jerk reactions. Buffalo and WNYfaces much deeper problems than what style of road will run along a barren stretch of waterfront land.
SIGN PETITION AGAINST D.O.T. http://whynotbuffalo.blogspot.com/
[...just highlighting again what Joshua beat me in doing.]
The blog is that of Jason Cozza, the intern of Paul Wolf---city Chief of Staff to the Common Council.
Is Higgins wildly charasmatic or did he bring the purple Kool-Aid to the studio today?
We need an attractive gateway into the city that doesn't make people want to rush through it. We need waterfront parkland until it's developed little by little. And are you serious about the pollution? If you believe what you're saying, keeping an elevated highway is the best analogy to sweeping dirt under a rug I've ever heard.
It's time to clean up, develop and enjoy the waterfront. Maintaining a Great Lakes waterfront as a wasteland is sheer lunacy. Perpetuating it for another fifty years would be a sin.
Agreed, this should have been dealt with earlier, but because it wasn't...it's now or never.
The NFTA's outer harbor land was certified as 'clean' by the NYSDEC. Empty does not equal polluted. Sickening yes.
Elena you misread my post. Higgins said what he said likely for the reasons I listed above.
If you reread my post, I stated that I agree that what we're getting is not the best possible outcome. What I was criticizing is the 11th hour assault on an already-planned process by a small number of people who think they represent the area's popular opinion on this issue.
Buffalo despoiled waterfront is largely a reflection of the area's economic condition and general electoral apathy. In fact, America's massive clusterfuck of a built landscape is largely a result of such popular complacency, though some areas are obviously better off than others. It's rather hard to implement progressive planning when the general population doesn't give two shits. Visually compare Portland OR with Buffalo and you'll see this stark difference.
Well, whatever, it's too late. The DOT project is what we're stuck with and a bunch of BRO contributors and readers won't change this.
wow elena, any more comment editing and i think there will be a job for you on the Bush Administration. What a joke!! First drunken Zimmerman's post and now editing links out of posts. Sad really, what this web site has become. You guys really are a bunch of idiots!
Elena, if you are clumsily hinting that we didn't conduct an objective interview...well, I'll consider the source on that.
We need an attractive gateway into the city that doesn't make people want to rush through it.
So, what about the DOT plan does not provide an attractive gateway into the city? If we still have the potential to remove the Skyway in the future and there are funded studies to explore a Main Street lift bridge that would connect the inner and outer harbors, what is the problem? Also, I argue the premise that people don't want to rush into a city. It's a tip that cities are intended to be busy, dense, and rushed places to live, work, and play. I know that seems a foreign concept to us since we don't live in a place like that, but we aren't looking to create Niagara On The Lake here...
We need waterfront parkland until it's developed little by little.
Again, what in the current plan precludes development or parkland? In fact, there is work going on right now to create the parkland that everyone so desires. Have you been out to the Outer Harbor recently?
It's time to clean up, develop and enjoy the waterfront. Maintaining a Great Lakes waterfront as a wasteland is sheer lunacy.
We are cleaning it up, right now. We are developing it, right now. No one is advocating that it should be maintained as a wasteland. To proffer such a comment is intellectually dishonest and obscures productive debate.
In the end, the planning has not been coordinated. Significant investment has been made to create a location for transshipment and light industrial business on Route 5. What do you suggest we do with the companies who require access to major highways to conduct business in that area? Should BNE and ECIDA rewrite their plans for economic development? It is possible to have highways near waterfront land...Chicago seems to fair alright with Lakeshore Drive along its waterfront. Toronto is doing just fine with the Cardiner Expressway...compromise is key.
All of the arguments against this plan, and the process, are very heavy on emotion and very light on facts.
The time to advocate for the Boulevard Alternative was two years ago, when the public hearings were being conducted. Or maybe some other time during the 20-year history of the planning for this project.
If someone can fine a solitary legal ground to bring a lawsuit, then do it. It doesn't cost much - less than $400 to file a lawsuit to block the project and to bring a motion or order to show cause for a temporary injunction. All you need to do is convince the court that not enjoining the project would result in an imminent risk of irreversible harm, and a likelihood of success on the merits. The first one, everyone here is arguing. It's the second one you're all lost on - what is the cause of action. Where are the merits of any lawsuit to block this?
There aren't any, and that's why everyone is just invoking the ghost of Robert Moses for lack of a better argument.
How many of you have been to the Outer Harbor lately? How exactly does this plan separate people from their waterfront? What people?
As to Elena's insinuation that people drank Higgins' Kool-Aid, at least no one got into an obnoxious screaming match with Higgins that embarrassed everybody.
let me guess, your excuses for not knowing about the public hearings was the BRO wasn't around? You people make me sick!
Pundit you make some very good point about the time in which people should have been more vocal. Now correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the DOT gone with this same plan if there was the same opposition 2 years ago? Wasn't it a decision made on public feedback and not by the public? The reason I ask is couldn't the DOT have arrived at the same decision regardless of how much support and when it was most vocal of the Boulevard Alternative? I think this is the main frustration for many. I feel, and I could be wrong, that the DOT would have done the plan that they and elected leaders wanted regardless of how much support there was/is for an alternative plan and when that support was voiced. It is simply the way things are done in NY.
The next question is, outside of the fact the DOT does not have to change their mind, why can't they change their mind? After all if all options were considered equally then one would think that all plans for the options are complete. If this were the case, why can't the plan be changed now? It is not like there would be more studies needed to be done. No? Construction has not started and there is nothing out there anyways. If both options were prepped to the same point before the decision why can't the other be chosen before construction starts. I mean I have watched personally 50 story/95M high rise towers be changed mid-construction. Can't the change for this 55M project be changed before it starts? For anyone who answers this please understand I am asking CAN not SHOULD. I am just looking to become more knowledgeable on why it can't.
I think the fear for myself and others is the Boulevard Alternative would guarantee the skyway coming down and the current plan by the DOT only keeps that as a possibility. With the DOT and elected leaders currently digging in and saying "you had your time" only increases the fear of people in Buffalo that the skyway is never going to come down. That somewhere done the line the DOT and leaders say we can't do that because of what was done in 2008. Not saying that this is exactly what is going to happen but it is the fear and precedent of transportation mishaps has been established.
Honestly, if the DOT or Higgins came out today and guaranteed the skyway coming down in the next 5 years a lot of the opposition would back off. At least I would. Maybe this is the compromise...
I really don't see this plan as having anything to do with the Skyway, which is the embodiment of the "cutting the waterfront off from the people" argument that's been engaged in here. (The Skyway and the 190, for that matter).
If the current DOT plan is built, there is nothing stopping anyone from constructing the Tifft Street Arterial between Route 5 and the I-190, which has also been proposed and would obviate the need for the Skyway.
This just isn't the disaster people are making it out to be.
It's too late to say what the DOT would be doing had the opposition to this plan, and in support of the boulevard, been as vocal in 2005 as it is now. Anything anyone says would be speculative. But the time for argument and persuasion and petitions was then - not now.
And, to be clear - I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be angry, or disagree, or to voice their opinions. I'm saying the timing is all wrong, as a practical matter.
Pundit - thankyou for referencing my comment on your site - but you still do not discount my point. You echo Higgins in saying the time for action was in 2005 - and now it is too late.
In doing a little trolling I discovered a few things.
1- Higgins has been championing the Fuhrman Blvd parkway since August 2005 - so this has been his baby for over 2 years.
2- Not a single mention of the Boulevard Alternative appears in any news article prior to the CNU's talk of it in 2007.
3- The primary discussion in July/August of 2005 was for the removal of the Skyway bridge - and NOT the alternatives for the southtowns connector.
So who really made this choice? The people of Buffalo - or Higgins and the DOT. In Higgins letter to the DOT from August of 2005...
http://skywayalternatives.com/24/
...it seems not even he is aware of the Boulevard Alternative. He states that a "wholesale reconstruction of the Route Five/Fuhrmann Boulevard complex" isn't possible do to financial constriants. At the time, there was only 22.36M available for this project. Then why did the DOT include the Boulvard Alt as a option? Higgins also states that the Fuhrmann parkway would only cost the 22.36M available. So now it is costing us $50M? In a matter of 2 years the cost of this project - according to Higgins - has doubled.
Back to my point - a "press release" by the DOT doesn't make something a matter of public knowledge... especially when the "press release" doesn't make it to.... the press. Had the public known about a better alternative in 2005... the Boulevard Alt... then maybe there would have been a little more public input. You cannot say that the time to act was then, in 2005, when that wasn't even an option.
oops - Higgins letter was from August of 2007 - which makes me wonder how the cost of this porject - according to Higgins - jumped to $50M.
Ok - I knew I read it somewhere -
http://higgins.house.gov/newsroom.asp?ARTICLE3116=5619&PG3116=33
mixed up my links. Staring at this computer for too long.
This project, whatever it ends up transforming to, will last probably the next 50 years. Yes, there is nothing there now, no big condos, no trendy coffee shops. However, the boulevard alternative encourages more of this type of growth and well maybe in 5, 10 or 20 years the wasted land that looks like a ghost town now can become a bustling urban neighborhood. Plus, oil will probably be too expensive in 20 years to even be driving around on an elevated highway. But thats a whole different argument. Anyways give it some time, the boulevard will make it more appealing
Report this